12 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Cu. L
6. David the king (rov Aaveld tov Bacrréa, “ the David, the king”). Both words are thus emphasized: the David from whom Christ, if he were the Messiah, mst have descended ; the king with whom the Messiah’s genealogy entered upon the kingly dignity. In this genealogy, where the generations are divided symmetrically into three sets of fourteen, the evangelist seems to connect the last of each set with a critical epoch in the history of Israel: the first reaching from the origin of the race to the commencement of the monarchy (‘“ David the king”); the second, from the commencement of the monarchy to the captivity in Babylon; the third and last, from the captivity to the coming of “the Christ.” The same emphatic or demon- strative use of the article occurs with the name of Joseph (ver. 16), marking his peculiar relation to Jesus as the husband of Mary: the Joseph, the husband of Mary.
18. Espoused (uynotevYeions: Rev., betrothed; Tyn., maryed). The narrative implies a distinction between betrothal and mavr- riage. Irom the moment of her betrothal a woman was treated as if actually married. The union could be dissolved only by regular divorce. Breach of faithfulness was regarded as adul- tery, and was punishable with death (Deut. xxii. 23, 24), and the woman’s property became virtually that of her betrothed, unless he had expressly renounced it; but, even in that case, he was her natural heir.
19. Not willing (47 Sé\ev)—was minded (€BovAHSn). These two words, describing the working of Joseph’s mind, and evidently intended to express different phases of thought, open the question of their distinctive meanings in the New Testament, where they frequently occur (9é\@ much oftener than BovAouar), and where the rendering, in so many cases by the same words, furnishes no clue to the distinction. The origi- nal words are often used synonymously in cases where no dis- tinction is emphasized ; but their use in other cases reveals a radical and recognized difference. An interchange is inad- missible when the greater force of the expression requires Sérew. For instance, BovrAec9ae would be entirely inappro-
Ca. 1] MATTHEW. 13
priate at Matt. viii. 3, “Z well, be thou cleansed ;” or at Rom. vii. 15.
The distinction, which is abundantly illustrated in Homer, is substantially maintained by the classical writers throughout, and in the New Testament.
@érew is the stronger word, and expresses a purpose or de- termination or decree, the execution of which is, or is believed to be, in the power of him who wills. BovAecIar expresses wish, inclination, or disposition, whether one desires to do a thing himself or wants some one else to do it. Qedew, there- fore, denotes the active resolution, the will urging on to action. Botr\eo$ar is to have a mind, to desire, sometimes a little stronger, running into the sense of purpose. Oédew indicates the impulse of the will; BotrAerIat, its tendency. Botreodat can always be rendered by Jérew, but Jérew cannot always be expressed by BovAeoS at.
Thus, Agamemnon says, “I would not (ov« Sedov) receive the ransom for the maid (.¢., I refused to receive), because I greatly desire (SovNopat) to have her at home ” (Homer, “Il.,” ji. 112). So Demosthenes: “It is fitting that you should be willing (€9érew) to listen to those who wash (BovAopévor) to ad- vise” (“Olynth.,” i. 1). That is to say, It is in your power to determine whether or not you will listen to those who desire to advise you, but whose power to do so depends on your consent. Again : “If the gods will it (9€\wov) and you wish it (Bovknade)” (Demosth., “ Olynth.,” ii. 20).*
In the New Testament, as observed above, though the words are often interchanged, the same distinction is recognized. Thus, Matt. ii. 18, “ Rachael would not (Sere) be comforted ;” obsti- nately and positively refused. Joseph, having the right and power under the (assumed) circumstances to make Mary a pub- lic example, resolved (Sédwv) to spare her this exposure. Then the question arose—What should he do? On this he thought,